To Cofty
Towerwatchman You have discovered a forum where you can frenetically reiterate all your carefully rehearsed apologetics and copy-paste your favourite apologists.
Nothing rehearsed. Copy and paste yes. Either my work or if someone else, cited.
The thing is we have heard all of this a thousand times year after year. Some of us used to preach exactly the same stuff. You have a style that makes conversation impossible and unfruitful. I don't believe you are as incapable of following a simple argument as you appear. I think you are trying to do far too much at once. You totally miss the point of every single thing people say to you and come back with smart-arse comments that are totally irrelevant to the topic. Is it possible for you to stop that and actually engage in a meaningful conversation?
Yet to this point no rebuttal with substance. Read the responses, most responses to my OP are rude. Why engage that, I will just go for the jugular in the argument and capitalize. All my post respond to some point made. Now if you find dishonesty, don’t tell me about it, point it out.
Let's go back to your OP. You claimed that in order to assert that god does not exist an atheist would need perfect knowledge. Lots of people have explained why you are wrong.
Anyone who is affirming a negative absolute would need unlimited knowledge.
1 - To be an atheist simply means to not be persuaded that god exists. Literally means "without god". It is not necessary to make a positive claim that god does not exist. Some atheists would go that far - I do - but not all atheists do. If you are going to have a useful conversation with people who disagree with you, you need to try hard to properly represent their actual views.
When it comes to the deity question there are only three positions one can take. 1 Theist, 2 Atheist, 3 Agnostic. Position 1 and 2 either affirms or deny the existence of deity and has to provide support. Position three is the only one that gets to sit on the fence. Amazing how many want to be identified as atheist but then want to change the definition. What it comes down to is that many want to deny the existence of deity based on irrationality, but want to continue ontologically with theistic ideas. Following Atheism to a logical conclusion there is no meaning or purpose in life, no objective morality. Basically want to sit on the fence with the Agnostic and reap the benefits of both sides of the debate. I say ‘man up’. If Atheist embrace everything that is Atheist. Cut the umbilical cord from Theism, and go happily into oblivion with fear and despair to which only a Nietzsche or a Jean Paul Sartre can do full justice.
2 - You have failed to define what you mean by god. If you leave god undefined so that it might include a very vague version of deism then of course nobody can prove you are wrong. But we both know that is not your position. Once you are honest enough to define god then it does become perfectly possible for atheists to show that the specific god you are preaching does not, or cannot, exist.
Again a supernatural being with intelligence.
I am willing to assert that I can prove god does not exist but with two conditions...
1 - By "god" I mean the god and father of Jesus, the god of christian theism. I mean an all-powerful being who made all things, who is the epitome of goodness and love, who is active in the physical world and who desires a relationship with humans.
2- By "prove" I mean establish beyond all reasonable doubt.
This god does not exist. I am more than willing to back that claim up but in the context of this thread my only aim to show that your assertion about atheism being self-refuting is wrong.
Atheism is not the denial of the Judeo Christian God but any deity. So follow the Atheist worldview and prove that no deity can exist.
Sadly I doubt that you will take the time to read this carefully and reflect on it.
But since you are so eager to disprove the Judeo Christian God, who am I to spoil your joy. Go ahead I will play your game.